leniency of judicial system

Potential-Monke

Brian? wrote: »

That’s a common misconception. It doesn’t need to be planned to be murder. You just need to intend harm at that moment and not be impaired of defending yourself with reasonable force. Premeditation is irrelevant.

It's kinda the same. You need to show intent, prior to the actual act. Whether that intent is 5 minutes or 5 years, it doesn't matter.

Sorry, re-reading my post it does come across like you need a Mission Impossible type plan in order to commit murder. I should have used intent instead of plan.

Edit: From the 1964 act, but there could be an ammendment I'm not willing to try and find:

4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

Ah sure he probably didn't intend to kill or seriously harm the guy he stabbed 14 times either.

walshb

Brian? wrote: »

I’ve no idea.


Judges sentence based on case law. Worst case scenario for a judge is that their sentence is appealed and changed. So they aren’t actually purposely lenient. They are handing down the most severe sentence they can that they know won’t be changed on appeal.

I don't buy it at all here

Let there be appeals.....this monster is a proven killer....

This judge could have handed a far lengthier sentence and chose to hand down a disgusting sentence to this monster, after she admits he will very likely re-offend....and re-offend isn't stealing some bar a chocolate; it is butchering people...

Manslaughter can see a life sentence....this woman chose to allow this monster freed after 8-10 years if remission is taken into account.

So she absolutely was purposely lenient......clear as day she was when you consider what this animal did, and her comments about him.

Brian?

walshb wrote: »

I don't buy it at all here

Let there be appeals.....this monster is a proven killer....

This judge could have handed a far lengthier sentence and chose to hand down a disgusting sentence to this monster, after she admits he will very likely re-offend....and re-offend isn't stealing some bar a chocolate; it is butchering people...

Manslaughter can see a life sentence....this woman chose to allow this monster freed after 8-10 years if remission is taken into account.

So she absolutely was purposely lenient......clear as day she was when you consider what this animal did, and her comments about him.

You know both sides can appeal? If the DPP feels the sentence is too lenient they can appeal it and there's a chance it'll be increased on appeal.

That's the line the judge has to walk, neither too lenient or too harsh to be appealed. Without the emotional language of calling defendants "animals" etc. . Judges are supposed to be unemotional and impartial. Then they get pilloried for doing it.

I find that whenever these discussions come up there is a serious lack of understanding of how the justice system works, or doesn't work. People calling for judges heads etc. when it's not the judges who are the problem. They are working within the confines of a system.

It's the system that needs to be reformed.

rob316

It would be something atleast if he actually served 12 years behind bars, reality is he will be out on licence in 6 years time to kill again.

Do you know in Ireland you can be paroled after 7 years of a life sentence. 7 years!

walshb

Brian? wrote: »

You know both sides can appeal? If the DPP feels the sentence is too lenient they can appeal it and there's a chance it'll be increased on appeal.

That's the line the judge has to walk, neither too lenient or too harsh to be appealed. Without the emotional language of calling defendants "animals" etc. . Judges are supposed to be unemotional and impartial. Then they get pilloried for doing it.

I find that whenever these discussions come up there is a serious lack of understanding of how the justice system works, or doesn't work. People calling for judges heads etc. when it's not the judges who are the problem. They are working within the confines of a system.

It's the system that needs to be reformed.

And this 'system' allows this judge to impose a far harsher sentence than 12 fooking years. Out in maybe 8

This judge/person chose 12 years....the system did not.

The judge here in this case is the issue She imposed this disgusting sentence on a killer....

Judges are part of the system.

It's not always a system reform.....sometimes a judge needs reforming.

Her disgusting sentence never took into account the safety of society, which it should have. She cocked up here. Simple as

A life sentence was there...and that is D only sentence this animal deserves. You don't have to be a judge to know this.

She has imposed a sentence that will see this man free to kill again. She is the problem here. Not this animal.

She had the perfect chance to impose the proper sentence, and nobody with an ounce of decency would have criticized a life sentence here.

Brian?

walshb wrote: »

And this 'system' allows this judge to impose a far harsher sentence than 12 fooking years. Out in maybe 8

This judge/person chose 12 years....the system did not.

The judge here in this case is the issue She imposed this disgusting sentence on a killer....

Judges are part of the system.

It's not always a system reform.....sometimes a judge needs reforming.

Her disgusting sentence never took into account the safety of society, which it should have. She cocked up here. Simple as

A life sentence was there...and that is D only sentence this animal deserves. You don't have to be a judge to know this.

She has imposed a sentence that will see this man free to kill again. She is the problem here. Not this animal.

She had the perfect chance to impose the proper sentence, and nobody with an ounce of decency would have criticized a life sentence here.

You're completely ignoring what I said. She didn't have the freedom you think she does. I explained why.

walshb

Brian? wrote: »

You're completely ignoring what I said. She didn't have the freedom you think she does. I explained why.

Could she or could she not have given a longer sentence, even a life sentence?

Yes/no?

Whether or not it is appealed is not relevant.......could she have given a longer sentence?

You are making out that judges are always completely bound by a system, and that they cannot use flexibility and discretion etc.

She chose this sentence, not some system.

Brian?

walshb wrote: »

Could she or could she not have given a longer sentence, even a life sentence?

Yes/no?

Whether or not it is appealed is not relevant.......could she have given a longer sentence?

What would be the point of giving a longer sentence if she knew it would be reduced on appeal. That’s a waste of taxpayer money and court time.

Technically she could have. Then that would have been appealed and the sentence reduced. Meaning the state has to pay for the whole thing. Net result is the same amount of time in prison.

Do you want judges to sentence based on feelings or facts?

walshb

Brian? wrote: »

What would be the point of giving a longer sentence if she knew it would be reduced on appeal. That’s a waste of taxpayer money and court time.

Ok, so she could have given one....

Let anyone and everyone appeal...who cares.......I would have next to no issue with my taxes being sent caging violent scum like this. That is life. People are entitled to appeal Appeals happen all the time....

Stop the BS about worrying about taxpayers money in this case...

You are now kind of stating, almost as fact, that the sentence gets reduced on appeal. It may or may not, but again, so what...

Sentence these people to proper sentences....in this case, life was what she should have given here

Did you hear what she said about this man?

Judges are humans, and they make cocks ups like everyone else

This judge had her chance to impose a proper sentence here, and to ensure the safety of society from this man. She dropped the ball big time

walshb

Brian? wrote: »

Do you want judges to sentence based on feelings or facts?

I want our justice system to put away killers.....for life in some cases
This case.......absolute clear cut life....

spring lane jack

walshb wrote: »

Yes.

A proper sentence that..

Attempted murder should be automatic life as well..

I knew that freak personally and I know the victims dad, a very decent respectable and hard working man, yet the poor girl had to put up with awful abuse from the rest of the scum in that horrible town. She was subjected to bullying and was constantly being called a rat.

Brian?

walshb wrote: »

Ok, so she could have given one....

Let anyone and everyone appeal...who cares.......I would have next to no issue with my taxes being sent caging violent scum like this. That is life. People are entitled to appeal Appeals happen all the time....

Stop the BS about worrying about taxpayers money in this case...

You are now kind of stating, almost as fact, that the sentence gets reduced on appeal. It may or may not, but again, so what...

Sentence these people to proper sentences....in this case, life was what she should have given here

Did you hear what she said about this man?

Judges are humans, and they make cocks ups like everyone else

This judge had her chance to impose a proper sentence here, and to ensure the safety of society from this man. She dropped the ball big time

The judge did her duty impartially. If the sentence is too lenient the DPP should appeal it. Why don’t you get on to your TD to ask why the DPP aren’t doing their job here?

He was given a proper sentence. It just wasn’t as tough as you wanted it to be. Yes, I am stating as fact that if a sentence is handed out that isn’t in line with previous sentencing it will be changed. That’s the case if it’s too tough or too easy.

How do you think judges decide sentences? Gut feeling?

Brian?

walshb wrote: »

I want our justice system to put away killers.....for life in some cases
This case.......absolute clear cut life....

I don’t disagree

I’m telling you how the system works now though. Call your TD, join a political party, do something If you think it should be different. Giving out about judges will change nothing